All things being equal, when inserting data into cluster indexed table, assuming I am inserting in the order of clustered index, is there a difference how sql server will fill in the physical pages compared to if the inserted table had only non-clustered
index?

On a different subject, is the physical location of data on a page effects query performance? If so, how?

I have go through execution plan,it shows me a table scan(10%) on a table who has the index column.then also it show table scan so how can i force it to use the indexe column from the table???
Thank's
Digambar

1. How is the index mainitained for a partitioned table?
2. Whether SQL Server has an overhead in maintaining INDEX in a partitioned table compared to a non-partitioned one?
3. If i insert few rows, does it affect the INDEX statistics in all partitions or only the affected partition.
I would like to find out more details on how SQL Server manages INDEX on a partitioned table.

Hi, I'm having a deadlock issue. I noticed that I've 2 queries one doing an update and the other doing an insert,

My table has a cluster index on the ID which is an identity field. The update statement is updating other columns which are not included on the cluster index, however on the execution plan it shows that it will need to do a cluster index update.

What's the reason it could be that the cluster index needs an update if the column itself is not being updated?

I have the following table variable that i store rows extracted from an
xml document;

declare @tbl_ans table ( AnsText nvarchar(max), IsCorr bit)

this cannothave an index column.

assume it has 25 rows, i need insert each row to a table that has three columns

That Answers table has following structure:

a_idx int,

a_text nvarchar(max),

is_active int,

upt_date datetime

The script should iterate through the @tbl_ans_table table and insert each to the answers table then i should fetch each
a_idx in each iteration and insert it to another. But the problem is how itereate through
@tbl_ans_table without an index?

Hello,ÃÂ We're planning to replicate a very large table (about 1TB) -- Yes Table, not database.ÃÂ ÃÂ Can afford only very little (10-20 min) ÃÂ downtime.ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ Is it possible to have clean replication with the source table in the source database (non partitioned) to destination table in the destination database (partitioned and indexed differently than the source) ?ÃÂ ÃÂ Although data is the same.ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ We're primarily doing this replication for paritioning sake , as we can't affordÃÂ downtime.ÃÂ So the plan is to replicate the entire source database to the destination.ÃÂ ÃÂ There are 2-3 large tables that hold 80% of the database data.ÃÂ ÃÂ So when both DBs are in sync, we'll repoint theÃÂ production.

I am trying to write some policies to enforce our coding standards. One of the standards we have is to prefix indexes with IX_<tablename>; the IX_ is easy to do with the index facet. How do you access the tables name in the condition?Thanx, Adam

i am facing a problem to get a correct row index after i filter the data in table, it always keep the history row index in the table before i filter. i had a search button to filter the data in gridview,

What is a good real world maximum(so i am not looking for this answer:http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2009/06/29/sql-server-maximum-number-of-index-per-table/) for the number of indexes on a table (table has around 50 columns and at the moment 3 indexes)

. I would like to add 3 more indexes on fields that are not used for joining but are searched upon lots of the time. Is this a good idea?